Tuesday, January 11, 2011

I'd have to say that, in general, the response to this last weekend's shootings in Tucson by politicians of both sides and the public has been the appropriate response - contemplation, sympathy, and calls for more tempered dialogue. Of course, you knew you could count on Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck to take it to new levels of narcissism and have their own little pity party. But, I knew it was just a matter of time before you'd have a few people go completely off the reservation. That's what's so entertaining about the far Right, especially my own state's far Right. Faced with a stupid and unfortunate event that calls for solemnity, they will double-down. In their book, their is no inappropriate response. If you are catching heat because inflamed rhetoric might have even remotely and indirectly influenced someone, then ratchet up the rhetoric and ratchet up the stupid:

AZ State Rep. Jack Harper, (Repub.) -- "When everyone is carrying a firearm, nobody is going to be a victim. The socialists of today are only one gun confiscation away from being the communists of tomorrow."

I think it has less to do with the actual availability of guns and more to do with our culture. It's drilled into you that the "right to bear arms" is a defining characteristic of freedom and democracy and if you don't want guns, then you are a bad American and a Communist.

Like I said, I think it has more to do with our attitude than with availability (though availability plays a part). Down here, people would give up their first born before they would let someone take the gun from their "cold dead hands".

I wouldn't suggest banning guns. It's a complete impossibility in our country ... even I realize that. But no one can convince me that the mentally ill carrying concealed, semi-automatic weapons legally is about freedom.

dbackdad said: I wouldn't suggest banning guns. It's a complete impossibility in our country ... even I realize that.

Well, I'd certainly say that it would be difficult.... [grin]

dbackdad said: But no one can convince me that the mentally ill carrying concealed, semi-automatic weapons legally is about freedom.

Was the (suspected) Arizona shooter mentally *ill*? Maybe mentally *disturbed* - but then again they always say that..... If you want to stop certain types of people obtaining guns legally then you'll need a nation-wide (or at least State wide) register to put them on and make sure its up to date and abided by (with no loop-holes like gun fairs.....).

It's a very difficult and emotional issue, but its not beyond human capability to deal with it.

Yes well if we're going to be spouting about numbers, there does seem to be some sense in being accurate about them. Obviously 9000 is a significant number, but it's not 30K. Also the UK's population size a sixth of what the United State's is. Also they don't have the same inner city gang problems that the United States has which is where the great majority of deaths from guns take place. Yes, Lance is right, it's a cultural problem, but I don't think it's due to hicks in the south clutching their guns, they've had guns since the 1700's and weren't offing themselves at this rate. I think it has to do with our inner city gangs and the culture of violence that goes with them. And of course prohibition. Ironically, the areas that sport the most gun violence are the areas in which guns ARE banned. Places like Washington DC.

Also, the UK is not the blissful place you paint it. There may be less gun violence, but the result of your gun prohibition is a higher crime rate than what the United States has.

"I wouldn't suggest banning guns. It's a complete impossibility in our country ... even I realize that. But no one can convince me that the mentally ill carrying concealed, semi-automatic weapons legally is about freedom."

If it's true that the mentally ill are carrying concealed semi-automatic weapons legally, than wouldn't make sense for me, a sane woman with three children to have a gun to defend myself? Yes. It does make sense and the problem with that is how do we determine who should be able to legally have concealed weapons and who should not-not the banning of guns entirely.~S